AD&D First Edition inferior?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
GENEWEIGEL said:
I'll field this one.
Because it unilaterally restricts the DM to a difficult choice. If he awards xp for treasure, he is extremely limited when trying to control the rate at which PCs advance levels. If he wants a slower-than-normal advancement, he needs to dramatically restrict the amount of gp awarded.
Want the PCs to kill a dragon? You'll never find a haul like Smaug's... not when it's worth XP. This system effectively awards double XP for killing monsters, and the second set of xp is awarded at no risk. It was originally an incentive for going treasure hunting, but the gp itself turns out to be incentive enough.
In addition, the thief went up a - what? double? - the rate of other PCs from treasure xp. Heck, in 1e, we already knew that this was a problem. I believe that eliminating the xp-for-treasure was our first house rule.
Last edited:
diaglo
Adventurer
GENEWEIGEL said:
add exps for magic items too.
When to give the xps?
Say you slay Smaug. not that anyone in my campaign did. but
do the pcs get xps for all the treasure or only what they can carry/ spend/ use?
did you ever read the spell description for identify for 1ed.
?so say they do identify a magic item. who gets the xps? the mu or the user. what about potions? the discoverer or the user?
what about the monsters? did they get xps for the treasure already? not all monsters were classless. monsters like the slavers in the A series for example were human.
think back to B2 Keep on the Borderlands. the moneychanger at the Keep. did he get xps for all the treasure he owned? why should the pcs get it if they steal from him?
GENEWEIGEL
Explorer
Crack out the DMG.
1e and 2e.
Read the last paragraph on page 84 of the original Dungeon Masters Guide:
"Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure."
Read page 85 middle of the first column:
EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN
Gold Pieces: Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a one for one basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 g.p., 3 to 2, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or even for or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. For example, if a 10th level magic-user takes 1,000 g.p. from 10 kobolds, the relative strengths are about 20 to 1 in favor of the magic-user. (Such strength comparisons are subjective and must be based on the degree of challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure taker.)
Treasure must be physically taken out of the dungeon or lair and turned into a transportable medium or stored in the player's stronghold to be counted for experience points.
All items (including magic) or creatures sold for gold pieces prior to the awarding of experience points for an adventure must be considered as treasure taken, and the gold pieces received for the sale add to the total treasure taken. (Those magic items not sold gain only a relatively small amount of experiece points, for their value is in their usage.
There's more but its just a justification for this experience function.
Wait, now let's jump ahead to the second edition Dungeon Masters Guide last paragraph highlighted in blue on page 47:
"As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece, or equivalent, found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign."
The next page discusses the individual option with the rogue getting 2 XP per gp.
Why is it bad?
Because the 2e edition tells you it is without the facts!
1e and 2e.
Read the last paragraph on page 84 of the original Dungeon Masters Guide:
"Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure."
Read page 85 middle of the first column:
EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN
Gold Pieces: Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a one for one basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 g.p., 3 to 2, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or even for or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. For example, if a 10th level magic-user takes 1,000 g.p. from 10 kobolds, the relative strengths are about 20 to 1 in favor of the magic-user. (Such strength comparisons are subjective and must be based on the degree of challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure taker.)
Treasure must be physically taken out of the dungeon or lair and turned into a transportable medium or stored in the player's stronghold to be counted for experience points.
All items (including magic) or creatures sold for gold pieces prior to the awarding of experience points for an adventure must be considered as treasure taken, and the gold pieces received for the sale add to the total treasure taken. (Those magic items not sold gain only a relatively small amount of experiece points, for their value is in their usage.
There's more but its just a justification for this experience function.
Wait, now let's jump ahead to the second edition Dungeon Masters Guide last paragraph highlighted in blue on page 47:
"As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece, or equivalent, found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign."
The next page discusses the individual option with the rogue getting 2 XP per gp.
Why is it bad?
Because the 2e edition tells you it is without the facts!
Did you take any writing courses, like, ever? I can only understand what you're trying to say about 10% of the time.GENEWEIGEL said:Why is it bad?
Because the 2e edition tells you it is without the facts!
Is the above meant to indicate that you believe there's a weakness in giving XP for treasure? I assume not, given your general take on things.
So if not, how the hell does what you wrote above stand as support for award xp for treasure?
GENEWEIGEL
Explorer
RobNJ said:
Yes, I believe the last writing course was Advanced Message Board Replies 103.
"Like"? What course was that? Valleyonics?
I'm just pointing out that you didn't realize the 3e Challenge Rating was extrapolated from treasure guardian assessment!
Truth is there is nothing bad with it but you bit the bait and proved my point.
Unscholarly indeed!
Last edited:
Speaking of taking bait, I put that in there intentionally, realizing it is something that could be criticized. Despite my colloquialism, my meaning was clear. Yours is completely obscured.GENEWEIGEL said:
You might consider actually making the point you intend to make rather than leaving it as some sort of a trap.
I didn't "fall" for your trap. I just had absolutely no idea what the hell you were talking about. Even if I could make sense of pieces of what you were saying earlier, the final statement rendered everything I thought I had understood to nothingness.
You have no ability to carry on a discussion. You have four tools at your disposal: capital letters, smilies, exclamation marks and senseless text. You really don't have anything of value to add.
Similar Threads
- Poll
